Discourses of Land Use, Land Access and Land Rights at Farmerfield and Loeriesfontein in Nineteenth-century South Africa

Author(s):  
Fiona Vernal
2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-22 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brightman Gebremichael Ganta

In an agrarian society, like Ethiopia, where lion share of the population relies on land rights for livelihoods and welfare, access to land is fundamental to be capable of existence as a free and dignified human being. Otherwise, it can also be used a political asset for political control and to impoverish the societal well-being. With the opinion of historical pitfalls and injustices and the tremendous holistic contribution of access to rural land rights in Ethiopia, the constitutional makers of the post-1991 Ethiopia have incorporated the egalitarian concept of ‘free access to land for all needy nationals’. However, the content analysis of the legislation framed aftermath of the 1995 FDRE Constitution reveals the introduction of a policy shift towards land regionalism and market-based land access, because, it has attached regional residency requirement, prioritised to investors and model peasants and introduced land use payment in contradiction to the constitutional rule. Hence, this author argues for the restoration of the Constitutional principle of access to land rights.


2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 96-115 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Clark

The 1890s were a key time for debates about imperial humanitarianism and human rights in India and South Africa. This article first argues that claims of humanitarianism can be understood as biopolitics when they involved the management and disciplining of populations. This article examines the historiography that analyses British efforts to contain the Bombay plague in 1897 and the Boer War concentration camps as forms of discipline extending control over colonized subjects. Secondly, human rights language could be used to oppose biopolitical management. While scholars have criticized liberal human rights language for its universalism, this article argues that nineteenth-century liberals did not believe that rights were universal; they had to be earned. It was radical activists who drew on notions of universal rights to oppose imperial intervention and criticize the camps in India and South Africa. These activists included two groups: the Personal Rights Association and the Humanitarian League; and the individuals Josephine Butler, Sol Plaatje, Narayan Meghaji Lokhande, and Bal Gandadhar Tilak. However, these critics also debated amongst themselves how far human rights should extend.


2017 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 26-41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeannie Van Wyk

Our spatial environment is one of the most important determinants of our well-being and life chances. It relates to schools, opportunities, businesses, recreation and access to public services. Spatial injustice results where discrimination determines that spatial environment. Since Apartheid in South Africa epitomised the notion of spatial injustice, tools and instruments are required to transform spatial injustice into spatial justice. One of these is the employment of principles of spatial justice. While the National Development Plan (NDP) recognised that all spatial development should conform to certain normative principles and should explicitly indicate how the requirements of these should be met, the Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act 16 of 2013 (SPLUMA) contains a more concrete principle of spatial justice. It echoes aspects of both the South African land reform programme and global principles of spatial justice. Essentially section 7(a) of SPLUMA entails three components: (1) redressing past spatial imbalances and exclusions; (2) including people and areas previously excluded and (3) upgrading informal areas and settlements. SPLUMA directs municipalities to apply the principle in its spatial development frameworks, land use schemes and, most importantly, in decision-making on development applications. The aim of this article is to determine whether the application of this principle in practice can move beyond the confines of spatial planning and land use management to address the housing issue in South Africa. Central to housing is section 26 of the Constitution, that has received the extensive attention of the Constitutional Court. The court has not hesitated to criticize the continuing existence of spatial injustice, thus contributing to the transformation of spatial injustice to spatial justice. Since planning, housing and land reform are all intertwined not only the role of SPLUMA, but also the NDP and the myriad other policies, programmes and legislation that are attempting to address the situation are examined and tested against the components of the principle of spatial justice in SPLUMA.


Author(s):  
James Fowkes

Abstract A common skeptical view holds that socioeconomic rights are a different kind of right than civil-political rights. Even those who support justiciable socioeconomic rights often see them as a different kind of right with special challenges. I argue that this view is wrong. What all these observers are reacting to is not an inherent property of socioeconomic rights: it is a contingent property of a situation in which judges are asked to enforce a rights claim without a pre-existing set of familiar public understandings of the right’s content and/or an existing structure of officials and procedures to give effect to that content. It is because the rights claim is new, and this is something that can be, and often is, true of rights across the spectrum. Any rights claim is problematic to enforce to the degree that it is new, but these obstacles can and do disappear if society changes and the claim becomes less new. In the first part of the Article, I seek to establish the accuracy of this argument, drawing on examples of rights distinctions from the nineteenth-century United States and rights across the spectrum displaying newness in contemporary South Africa and India. I then show how controlling for newness can help us to understand standard features of the socioeconomic rights debate: the ubiquitous, but misleading, negative–positive distinction; arguments about resources; Fuller’s endlessly cited polycentricity argument; and current controversial cases, such as the budget-shifting judicial enforcement of Latin American healthcare entitlements. These topics are central to our widespread intuition that socioeconomic rights are different; newness can help us to see that this intuition is misleading us, and by recalibrating the debate can filter out some distractions that have long dogged it.


2021 ◽  
pp. 002198942098201
Author(s):  
Sarah Comyn ◽  
Porscha Fermanis

Drawing on hemispheric, oceanic, and southern theory approaches, this article argues for the value of considering the nineteenth-century literary cultures of the southern settler colonies of Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa from within an interconnected frame of analysis. First, because of their distinctive historical and structural conditions; second, because of the density of their interregional networks and relations across intersecting oceanic spaces; and third, because of the long history of racialized imperialist imaginaries of the south. This methodological position rethinks current approaches to “British world” studies in two important ways: first, by decoupling the southern settler colonies from studies of settler colonialism in North America; and second, by rebalancing its metropolitan and northern locus by considering south-south networks and relations across a complex of southern islands, oceans, and continents. Without suggesting either that imperial intercultural exchanges with Britain are unimportant or that there is a culturally homogenous body of pan-southern writing, we argue that nineteenth-century literary culture from colonial Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa — what we call a “southern archive” — can provide a counterbalance to northern biases and provide new purchase on nation-centred literary paradigms — one that reveals not just south-south transnational exchanges and structural homologies between southern genres, themes, and forms, but also allows us to acknowledge the important challenges to foundational accounts of national literary canons initiated by southern theory and Indigenous studies scholars.


2002 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 159-177 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laurence Wright

This paper sets out to formulate some of the economic reasons for the continuing dominance of English in the boardrooms, government forums, parastatals and laboratories of South Africa, to consider whether this situation is likely to change, and to assess the extent to which such a state of affairs is at odds with South Africa’s new language policy. The historical reasons for the dominance of English in this sphere are well known: the language’s imperial history, its status as a world language, its role as a medium for political opposition during the apartheid conflict, and the accumulation of capital and economic influence by English-speakers from the mid-nineteenth century onward. However, the day-to-day economic basis for the continuing dominance of English at the apex of South African society has hardly been considered.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document